Ulrich Beck: A Critical Introduction to the Risk Society

By Gabe Mythen

Ulrich Beck has emerged as one of the leading thinkers of the age. His principal claim to fame is as author of the widely acclaimed 'Risk Society', first published in 1986. Since this time, Beck's work has had a profound effect on the trajectory of social theory, leading to him being hailed as a zietgeist sociologist. The risk society thesis has gained credence within the academic community and across the disciplines as a means of explaining the large-scale changes that have enveloped contemporary society.

Despite its continued popularity as a touchstone for debate, the risk society perspective is yet to be systematically unravelled. Gabe Mythen provides both an introduction to and a critique of Beck's work that places his contribution within the context of other theorists of risk, such as Giddens, Douglas and Foucault. Key areas of analysis include risk and the environment, lifestyles and risk, public perceptions, media representations of danger and the changing nature of political engagement.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pluto Press
• Release date: Apr 20, 2004
• ISBN: 9781783716661

Gabe Mythen

Gabe Mythen is Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Liverpool. He has been researching in the field of public understandings of risk for several years, having published noted articles on risk society situations, such as BSE and GM foods. He is presently involved in research around the dynamics of the risk communications process and coordinates a number of undergraduate courses revolving around risk, urban cultures and sociocultural practices.

Book preview

Ulrich Beck

Ulrich Beck

A Critical Introduction

to the Risk Society

Gabe Mythen

First published 2004 by

Pluto Press

345 Archway Road, London N6 5AA

and 22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166–2012, USA

www.plutobooks.com

Copyright © Gabe Mythen 2004

The right of Gabe Mythen to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN9  7807  4531  814  1  paperback

ISBN9  7817  8371  666  1  ePub

ISBN9  7817  8371  667  8  Mobi

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data applied for

10   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

Designed and produced for Pluto Press by

Chase Publishing Services, Fortescue, Sidmouth, EX10 9QG, England

Typeset from disk by Stanford DTP Services, Northampton, England

Printed and bound on Demand in the European Union by

CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne, England

Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction

1Mapping the Risk Society

2Risk and the Environment

3Defining Risk

4Mediating Risk

5Perceiving Risk

6Living with Risk

7Risk, Reflexivity and Trust

8The Politics of Risk

Conclusion

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgements

A book cannot be written alone and there are a number of people whose knowledge, vitality and generosity have enabled me to produce this piece of work. I am grateful to Con Lodziak, Steve Taylor and John Tomlinson, each of whom sparked in different ways my interest in social theory and have acted as inspirational mentors. Anne Beech helped push the idea through in the early stages and provided invaluable editorial guidance throughout. The book has benefited from exchanges with colleagues at Manchester Metropolitan University, in particular Mark Banks, Helen Jones, Bernard Leach, Liz Marr, Katie Milestone, Jenny Ryan, Shirley Tate and Sandra Walklate. Thanks are also due to the following people, whose ideas, prompts and friendly criticisms helped knock off the rougher edges: Finn Bowring, Simon Cross, Simon French, Luke Goode, Linda Janes, Phil Kelly, John Maule, Michael Mehta, Kate Millar, Anne Nisbet, Richard Ronald, Jeremy Tatman and Corinne Wales. Finally, I am indebted to my family and my partner for offering the unstinting support and encouragement which sustained me throughout. You know who you are.

Introduction

In western cultures, the latter half of the twentieth century has been described as an epoch of flux, uncertainty and rapid social change (Bauman, 1991; Marwick, 1990). During this period, distinct transformations in the structure and functions of dominant institutions generated a complex mix of liberties and constraints (Giddens, 1991; 1994; Waters, 1995). Since the Second World War, the building blocks of society have effectively been shaken up and relaid. Far-reaching transformations in family structure, employment patterns and welfare provision have redrawn class boundaries, shuffled gender roles and chopped up social identities (Beck, 2000a; Hughes and Fergusson, 2000). As the twenty-first century unfolds, the process of globalisation continues to disperse through economies and political institutions, rendering visible the connections between global shifts and local actions (Robertson, 1992, Tomlinson, 1999). Economic convergence, political fluctuation and national insecurity have become the motifs of the age. We are living in a ‘runaway world’ stippled by ominous dangers, military conflicts and environmental hazards. As a result, increasing portions of our everyday lives are spent negotiating change, dealing with uncertainty and assessing the personal impacts of situations that appear to be out of our control. In one way or another, the defining markers of modern society are all associated with the phenomenon of risk. In contemporary culture, risk has become something of an omnipresent issue, casting its spectre over a wide range of practices and experiences (Adam and van Loon, 2000: 2; Lupton, 1999a: 14). Locally, risk emerges as a routine feature of existence in areas as diverse as health, parenting, crime, employment and transport. Globally, concerns about air pollution, the state of the world economy and the spread of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Aids) are all underscored by risk.

As if to accentuate the instability of the modern era, the events of September the eleventh have acted as a high-voltage shock to the capitalist system. Post 9/11, something fundamental has changed in the way we perceive the concepts of safety and danger. Following a backdraft of concern about bioterrorism, twitchy politicians have advised citizens to stock up with essential foodstuffs and bottled water. On an international stage, world leaders talk about the menaces of living in a ‘post-secure’ world in which an ‘axis of evil’ threatens to spread ‘global terror’. In the words of the British Prime Minister, ‘September the eleventh was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue … our new world rests on order. The danger is disorder. And in today’s world it can now spread like contagion.’¹ Putting aside the political rhetoric, 9/11 has acted as a long overdue wake-up call for inhabitants of the affluent western world. The tragic incidents in New York and Washington illustrate that the unthinkable can and should be thought. After all, it has already happened.

Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, security investigations in several European countries have uncovered worrying evidence of intent to use biological and chemical substances amongst terrorist groups. Dirty bombs, anthrax, ricin and sarin have crept into the public vocabulary. The hyper-uncertain climate which has taken hold post 9/11 speeds a clear idea of what it means to live in a ‘risk society’. Layered over the top of longstanding everyday hazards, current anxieties about the threat of terrorism have added to a general feeling of public unease. As Jasanoff comments: ‘Just as a century ago, the idea of progress helped to name an optimistic era, so today risk, by its very pervasiveness, seems to be the defining marker of our own less sanguine historical moment’ (Jasanoff, 1999: 136).

Despite its ubiquity, the meaning of risk remains indeterminate. In contemporary society, the effects of various risks are keenly contested by politicians, scientific experts, media professionals and the general public. It is this very lack of consensus that makes risk such a fascinating topic of inquiry; and one which is always likely to produce disagreements. In western cultures, the meaning of risk has evolved alongside the development of social institutions, the economy and the welfare state. Following on from the Enlightenment period, the rapid expansion of scientific, technological and medical knowledge created an assemblage of expert systems of risk calculation, assessment and management. Social commentators of different persuasions are in consensus that the application of various forms of institutionalised knowledge about risk has enabled western cultures to eliminate a succession of threats to public health that blighted earlier epochs (see Furedi, 1997; Giddens, 1991: 116; North, 1997).² Accordingly, the incidence of infectious and epidemic diseases has fallen dramatically over the last 150 years (Smith, 2001: 148). Due to the capacity of science and medicine to improve both life expectancy and quality of life, various forms of risk regulation have become enshrined in health, medicine, law and government. A proliferation of technical and scientific knowledge about risk and the dissemination of regulatory procedures have undoubtedly fostered more acute forms of public consciousness. In the late modern period, public awareness of risk has also been influenced by the extension of the mass media and the growth of new information and communication technologies. The fluidity of information has enhanced channels of public communication and is propagating more visible debates between stakeholders (Strydom, 2003: 2).

However, as far as social knowledge goes, developments in technology, medicine and science have produced something of a cleft stick. Greater access to information about risk has empowered people to enact positive lifestyle changes, particularly in relation to health, fitness and diet (Beck-Gernsheim, 2000; Lupton, 1999b: 62). Yet the expansion of information has also caused conflicts over the meaning and impacts of risk amongst competing interest groups. Despite its enjoying comparative health and longevity, transboundary dangers cast a shadow of discomfiture over contemporary western society. Thus, the implicit bargain for techno-scientific development and heightened risk consciousness might well be the amplification of insecurity:

Over the past months and years we have endured the SARS crisis, the BSE scandal and the foot-and-mouth epidemic. We’ve been warned of deep-vein thrombosis from air travel, brain cancer from mobile phone radiation and mutations from genetically modified organisms. We’ve been told that climate change threatens our coastlines, antibiotic resistant viruses threaten our children and wayward asteroids threaten our planet. (Bird, 2003: 47)

At the level of risk perception, advancements in knowledge have failed to result in a more secure social climate. As the means of combating certain threats are promulgated, techno-scientific research generates more complex questions and issues. In matters of risk, it would seem that ‘the more we know, the less we understand’ (van Loon, 2000a: 173). This paradox enables us to appreciate why individuals in the West live comparatively longer and healthier lives, whilst simultaneously feeling less safe and secure (Pidgeon, 2000: 47; Sparks, 2003: 203).

In the last three decades, the availability of information about risk has been aided by the diffusion of media technologies. The broader circulation of risk communications within the mass media has undoubtedly enhanced awareness of risk and intensified public scrutiny of social institutions (Fox, 2000: 1; Wynne, 1996). The rising cultural profile of risk has also aroused more fundamental concerns about the relationship between individuals, institutions and society. In some instances, contestation and deliberation about risk have acted as a conduit for the articulation of broader ethical concerns (ESRC Report, 1999: 20; Vera-Sanso, 2000: 112). In addition to being construed as a scientific and economic affair, risk is also interpreted as a political and a moral issue (Caygill, 2000: 155). The debate currently taking place about the use of reproductive technologies for human cloning stands as a case in point.

The intensification of interest in risk amongst the media, politicians and the public has been mirrored by growing fascination with the subject within academia. Scholars of politics, science, health, economics, employment relations and the environment have all contributed to a colourful debate, giving rise to an ever-expanding number of research projects, study groups and university departments specialising in risk. However, although the language of risk is prolific, the concept itself remains cloaked in ambiguity. The residual lack of clarity surrounding both the constitution and the social impacts of risk have made it an irresistible area of inquiry for the social sciences. As a means of conceptualising risk, four paradigms have evolved within the social sciences. First, inspired by the pioneering work of Mary Douglas (1966, 1982, 1985, 1992), anthropological approaches have emerged. Anthropologists such as Douglas have investigated variations in understandings of risk between individuals and groups around the globe. Differences in risk perception have been unearthed and accounted for through particular patterns of social solidarity, world-views and cultural values. In recent times, the anthropological approach to risk has been revitalised by the efforts of Caplan (2000a), Bujra (2000) and Nugent (2000). Second, within the domain of social psychology, the psychometric paradigm has focussed on individual cognition of risk. In this oeuvre, Paul Slovic (1987, 1992, 2000) and his colleagues have developed psychometric methods of testing in order to determine which risks are perceived to be harmful by the public. Psychometric approaches have been oriented towards establishing the perceived constitution of various risks and the effects of this on estimations of harm. On the basis of psychological research, the heuristics and biases that commonly affect individual perceptions of risk have been delineated.

Third, the governmentality approach to risk has been fashioned by a crew of theorists deploying Michel Foucault’s writings on the disciplinary effects of discourse (Foucault, 1978, 1991). In this spirit, theorists such as Castel (1991), O’Malley (2001) and Dean (1999) have accentuated the role of social institutions in constructing understandings of risk which restrict and regiment human behaviour. Fourth, the risk society perspective assembled by Beck (1992) and seconded by Giddens (1998, 1999) has demarcated the pervasive effects of risk on everyday life. Both Beck (1999: 112) and Giddens (1998: 28) maintain that the process of modernisation has spawned a unique collection of humanly produced risks. The deleterious consequences of these ‘manufactured risks’ span the globe, giving rise to radical changes in social structure, politics and cultural experience.³ According to Beck, contemporary western cultures are party to a sweeping process of change, generated by the individualisation of experience and the changing logic of risk distribution (Mol and Spaargaren, 1993: 440). In the risk society narrative, seismic shifts in the relationship between the natural and the social necessitate refreshed ways of conceptualising society:

A new kind of capitalism, a new kind of global order, a new kind of politics and law, a new kind of society and personal life are in the making which both separately and in context are clearly distinct from earlier phases of social evolution. Consequently a paradigm shift in both the social sciences and in politics is required. (Beck, 2000c: 81)

What is remarkable about our current situation is the extent to which the global and the local intertwine. Decisions made at global altitude – for, example, about international trading, nuclear power or global warming – produce knock on consequences for local activities. Similarly, local practices – overproduction, regional conflict or the production of poisonous emissions – generate consequences which impact in distant regions.

In the last decade, the risk society perspective has been hugely influential, serving as a stimulus for academic, environmental and political dialogue (see Caplan, 2000a: 2; Adam and van Loon, 2000: 1). Beck’s extensively referenced Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (1992) is considered to be a landmark text in social and cultural theory (McGuigan, 1999: 125; Reiner et al., 2003: 176).⁴ Indeed, the term ‘risk society’ has become something of a lingua franca, capturing the imagination of the media and the public. Such currency – one hesitates to say notoriety – has only served to enhance Beck’s status as a ‘zeitgeist sociologist’ (Skinner, 2000: 160). For Beck, the concept of risk unlocks and defines the essential characteristics of modernity. However, Risk Society (1992) not only delves into the muddy waters of risk, it also provides a reflection of the modern condition and a sweeping narrative of social reconfiguration. For sure, the risk society thesis is about much more than just risk. Beck’s work also examines the broader interrelationship between humans and the environment, the effects of institutional change on social experience and the changing dynamics of politics.

What is more, the risk society thesis is also exceptional by way of academic method. As Bronner (1995: 67) notes, Beck has ‘an extraordinarily lively style, a provocative way of raising questions, and a genuinely experimental sensibility’. The risk society perspective goes well beyond the parameters of the social sciences, borrowing from art, poetry and philosophy. Whilst Beck’s unconventional style of writing has something of a postmodern quality, the content of the argument is indisputably modernist (Beck, 2002: 17; Dryzek, 1995). The risk society thesis is an attempt to capture the essence of social experience along the paths previously trodden by Marx, Weber and Habermas:

What I suggest is a model for understanding our times, in a not unhopeful spirit. What others see as the development of a postmodern order, my argument interprets as a stage of radicalised modernity … where most postmodern theorists are critical of grand narratives, general theory and humanity, I remain committed to all of these, but in a new sense … my notion of reflexive modernity implies that we do not have enough reason. (Beck, 1998a: 20)

Although the modernist rationale underpinning the risk society thesis has been questioned (Bujra, 2000), there is little doubt that Beck’s work has been instrumental in forcing risk onto the academic agenda. The risk society perspective has been pivotal in the evolution of cross-discipline debate between sociology, cultural studies, politics, geography and environmental studies. As a result, a medley of eclectic collections have mobilised Beck’s theory of risk as a touchstone for broader discussion about the role of technology, health and politics in society (see Adam et al., 2000; Caplan, 2000a; Franklin, 1998). A further bunch of theorists have sought to examine specific strands of the risk society thesis, such as the portrayal of reflexivity, the functions of the media or the logic of political distribution (see Lash, 1994; Cottle, 1998; Scott, 2000). Finally, several academics have offered progressive reviews of the risk society perspective as it pertains to specific areas of interest, such as the environment, postmodern culture and the psychology of anxiety (see Goldblatt, 1995; McGuigan, 1999; Wilkinson, 2001).

Despite great excitement about its explanatory possibilities, a holistic analysis of the risk society perspective has not been forthcoming. Bearing in mind Beck’s prolificacy and his academic status, the absence of a systematic deconstruction of the risk society perspective is nothing short of remarkable. In this book, I seek to fill the lacuna by following two interconnected seams of inquiry. Firstly, in an applied fashion, I recount the central tenets of the risk society perspective, testing its credibility in relation to existing theoretical and empirical evidence. Secondly, in a more thematic vein, the risk society thesis is employed as a vehicle for discussing the wider impacts and effects of risk on various social domains.⁵ Insofar as the risk society theory will be compared and contrasted with contemporary cultural practices and experiences, our textual journey also makes use of anthropological, psychometric and governmentality approaches as tools for comparison and critique.⁶

From the outset, it is worth identifying those interests which lie on, or beyond, the margins of this inquiry. The book does not seek to provide a detailed historical review of the concept of risk. Although the social evolution of risk is more than an occasional theme in the following pages, I do not seek to provide an exhaustive examination of the history of risk within the social sciences. Nor is the book intended as either a straight biography, or a precis of Beck’s academic work. Given the span and sophistication of Beck’s writing – from cosmopolitanism to the nature of love – this task is happily left to others. To recapitulate, the discrete object of scrutiny is the risk society perspective as expounded by Beck at various stages of his academic career (1992, 1995a, 1998a, 1999, 2002). Hence, our mainstays of textual discussion will be Beck’s most renowned works, Risk Society (1992), Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk (1995a) and World Risk Society (1999).⁷ Nonetheless, the book is structured around exploration of issues, rather than sequential textual deconstruction and draws across the spectrum of Beck’s writing, applying relevant texts to appropriate subject areas.

It is also worth logging the inevitable problems of interpretation that have been associated with Beck’s work (see Smith et al, 1997: 170). A number of hermeneutic difficulties arise out of Beck’s predilection for ambiguity, oscillation and dramatic effect (Goldblatt, 1995: 154). In the first instance, the big ideas are often played out on a highly abstract, theoretical plane (Cottle, 1998: 10). To further obfuscate matters, Beck is partial to switching between tenses within chapters.⁸ On occasion, such a mixed style of communication makes it difficult to decipher whether one is reading about the past, the present or the future. Indeed, Beck often writes in what might be referred to as a hypothetical present tense, ‘as if’ the scenario recounted were actually taking place. In other passages, a series of future scenarios are offered up for consideration (Beck, 1992: 223–35; 1997: 90–4; 2000: 150–79). As we shall see, although this unorthodox mode of narration has undoubted projective benefits, the frequent variations of style do tend to come at the expense of theoretical clarity. In Risk Society (1992), Beck changes the style of delivery, scoots from point to point, leaves layers of ambiguity and wilfully changes his mind. Such an extraordinary format and style make it difficult to subject Beck’s work to the usual methods of analytical scrutiny. I have tried, where possible, to tread a path which remains sensitive to the experimental nature of the risk society thesis, but does so without losing the cutting edge necessary for effective sociological criticism.

In its entirety, the book challenges the risk society thesis by exploring and reevaluating the relationship between risk, structural change and lived experience. I wish to construct a long overdue critique of the risk society thesis which refutes the claim that the dispersal of risk engenders a radically ‘new mode of societalization’ (Beck, 1992: 127). In contrast to the universalism inherent to the risk society perspective, I will be emphasising the complexity and multidimensionality of everyday negotiations of risk. In order to fashion this critique, I trace Beck’s approach, outlining the alleged impacts of risk on vital social domains, such as politics, science, the environment and personal relationships. Whilst such descriptive shadowing is a necessary prerequisite for understanding, in each chapter, subsequent analyses track empirical and theoretical evidence in order to question, refine and extend the risk society thesis.

In Chapter 1, the concept of risk is introduced. At this juncture, the composition and functions of risk as a social, economic and cultural construct are unpacked. This rudimentary discussion is complemented by an account of the risk society thesis which identifies the ‘pillars of risk’ and ‘icons of destruction’ which support Beck’s argument. In Chapter 2, general mapping of the risk society gives way to a more focussed consideration of the production of environmental risk. Here, the relationship between the natural and the social is bought into focus via an evaluation of the impacts of environmental risks on the ecosystem. Using a series of vignettes, the chapter probes the risk society narrative, fleshing out the material and ideological consequences of environmental despoliation. The third chapter unravels the role of dominant social institutions in building and shaping the meaning of risk. The structural dimensions of the risk society perspective are developed with reference to the operations of government, science and the legal system in defining the nature and the boundaries of risk. In Chapter 4, the pivotal role of the mass media in representing and communicating risk is discussed. At this stage, it will be demonstrated that the risk society thesis presents an impoverished account of the media, which underplays its centrality as a node of risk communication in contemporary society.

As an ensemble, the first four chapters of the book are broadly oriented towards understanding and evaluating the construction, production and mediation of risk. From Chapter 5 onwards, the axis of inquiry turns toward the way in which risks are comprehended, managed and consumed by individuals in everyday environments. In Chapter 5, we venture into the sticky area of risk perception, contrasting Beck’s universal ideals with the heterogeneity of public understandings of risk. Applying the risk society thesis to existing empirical research, we argue in favour of a more fluid approach, which captures the culturally grounded fashion in which people negotiate risk. Chapter 6 examines the visible imprints made by risk, tracing the outcomes of structural shifts on the quality and diversity of everyday practices. In this chapter, priority is accorded to the material effects of risk and individualisation on the family, the workplace and personal relationships. In the penultimate chapter, the cognitive aspects of everyday risk negotiations are highlighted through consideration of the symbiotic relationship between trust, reflexivity and risk. Stepping beyond widely stated claims of public distrust in expert systems, we reconvene the evidence in order to promote a more conditional reading of expert–lay relations in contemporary society. Building on previous theoretical discussion of the constitution of reflexivity, in Chapter 8 we unload the relationship between risk consciousness, public debate and political transformation. In particular, current political trends will be assessed as a means of quantifying possible drift away from politics based on class, toward a ‘politics of risk’. In order to investigate the potential of active micro-level disputes, patterns of political engagement will be related to the practice of ‘subpolitics’ (Beck, 1992: 183; 1999: 91). Using the political debate about genetically modified (GM) organisms as a touchstone, we interrogate the union established between risk and politics. At a theoretical level, the emancipatory trajectory of subpolitics is set against the restrictive capacities suggested by the governmentality approach. By adopting a strategy which incorporates both review and critique, I intend to construct an equitable appraisal of the risk society thesis; one which recognises its novel and progressive aspects, alongside the many theoretical holes and empirical oversights. If we are to develop a better understanding of how risk is represented, perceived and negotiated within everyday life, theory needs to